xxiii. 7. This fact may be thought to tell slightly in favour of a
Greek original. In the canonical Dan. ix. 13 there is a reference,
without precise quotation, to Moses' law, so that this mention is not
out of character. The phraseology of the verse in ?? has a distinctly
Hebraistic look, much more so than in ?????.
v. 55 ?????, ??. ???…?‡?®??, ???µ?†?±?»?®?? = ? ?¶?¤?¶?©?? Isai. xliii. 4.
v. 56 ?????. The epithet ?????????¬, as applied to the ??????????…???®?± of the Elder, is
inappropriate, and suggests an error of translation. Now ???????” is
rendered by ?????????¬ in Josh. xxii. 19[40], and this word would yield a
very good sense in a Semitic original here, supposed to lie in the
background.
v. 57 ?????, ??. If an animus against Israel, as Judah's inferior, is really
shewn here it would point to a Babylonian, and therefore Semitic,
original, inasmuch as the enmity between Israel and Judah does not
appear to have been so strong at Alexandria. The use of 'Israel,'
however, in v. 48 seems to include all in the first instance, and to be
employed of Susanna specially in the second, who was presumably of
Judah.
Pages:
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161